My doubts over the McCanns

by Guest 18.05.11 15:07

Ringo, I don't have the knowledge to answer you as to whether there have been other cases which match the situation we have with the McCanns but I'm not sure that they would be relevant. I accept that just because someone who shouts their innocence from the rooftops turns out to be guilty, it does not mean that anyone else is. I would just like to offer my own personal opinion which I hope won't be too boring! When the case first broke I thought that it was genuine and I certainly didn't judge the McCanns unfavourably because of their admission that they and their friends had left their children unattended. I am a parent myself and, if a book was ever written about all the stupid things I have done, it would rival "War and peace" in length. It has only been in the past two years that I have become aware of the many puzzling aspects about this case, there are too many to mention but they are all available on this site and elsewhere and I'm sure that you have read them. Some things can be explained away as coincidences but issues like the McCanns making no effort to look for Madeleine themselves (they are now claiming otherwise in their book) and arranging long-term fundraising events when the most likely outcome was that their daughter would be found at any moment are hard to ignore and there is also the mystery of why on earth was Gordon Brown interfering in the case from the word go? I respect your right to think completely differently - that is after all what discussion sites like this are about.

by Ringo 18.05.11 15:31

Marian wrote:Ringo, I don't have the knowledge to answer you as to whether there have been other cases which match the situation we have with the McCanns but I'm not sure that they would be relevant. I accept that just because someone who shouts their innocence from the rooftops turns out to be guilty, it does not mean that anyone else is. I would just like to offer my own personal opinion which I hope won't be too boring! When the case first broke I thought that it was genuine and I certainly didn't judge the McCanns unfavourably because of their admission that they and their friends had left their children unattended. I am a parent myself and, if a book was ever written about all the stupid things I have done, it would rival "War and peace" in length. It has only been in the past two years that I have become aware of the many puzzling aspects about this case, there are too many to mention but they are all available on this site and elsewhere and I'm sure that you have read them. Some things can be explained away as coincidences but issues like the McCanns making no effort to look for Madeleine themselves (they are now claiming otherwise in their book) and arranging long-term fundraising events when the most likely outcome was that their daughter would be found at any moment are hard to ignore and there is also the mystery of why on earth was Gordon Brown interfering in the case from the word go? I respect your right to think completely differently - that is after all what discussion sites like this are about.

Thank you for your post Marian, it's nice to have a response that is not full of goading smilies and mocking ripostes!

I take your point that just because there are no other cases at all anywhere in the world of a criminal that has repeatedly drawn attention to his / her crime, written a book about it and petitioned the government to have their crimes investigated doesn't mean that it hasn't happened on this occasion, however you would have to admit that the scenario is extremely unlikely not to mention highly implausible. We would have to ask ourselves why the McCanns of all people would be the ones to pursue that course of action, and I can think of no sensible, logical reason.

The examples you give of things that puzzle you about this case are completely and totally unpuzzling to me, but maybe this thread is not the place to go into the reasons why. All I would say is that most of the aspects of this case that people deemed puzzling are generally based on misunderstanding, misinterpretation or mistranslation.

by LittleMissMolly 18.05.11 16:37

Ringo, I totally accept that 'evidence' such as The Fund, the apparent lack of physical searching on the part of the McCanns and conspiracy theories about Gordon Brown, Masonic connections etc are/should be completely irrelevant when it comes to forming an opinion as to what happened to Madeleine McCann ... which is why you will never see me putting them forward as implications of guilt.

You will also never see me put forward their neglect of the children as proof of anything other than neglect.

None of these are proof of anything other than maybe bad choices and, as you say, are open to misenterpretation and putting 2 and 2 together to make creative accounting. Even the complete refusal of the McCanns to co-operate fully with the investigation and their inconsistencies/changing stories can be written off as evidence ... as they could merely be proof of arrogance, stupidity and seeking to present themselves in the best possible light in view of public opinion and censure.

In the same way the fact that the McCanns choose to whore themselves to the media and bring attention to themselves does not, as you appear to claim, confer proof of innocence... you cannot have your cake and eat it my friend!

However matters such as the dogs and the 15 out of 20 allelles DNA results are not so easily written off ... especially when combined with a complete LACK of evidence for abduction.

Gerry McCann - following the book banning case in Portugal consistently repeated that "a thesis without evidence is meaningless" ... something which, ironically, applies more so to the claims of abduction than it does to the hypothesis of accidental death and concealement of a cadaver.

As for 'innocent until proven guilty' ... well what that means is that a person cannot be punished in a Court of criminal law unless and until they have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt following a fair trial.

It does not mean that every individual in society has to assume they are innocent in the face of evidence to the contrary. It does not even mean that all Courts have to. There have been numerous cases of people being acquitted in the criminal courts but then being found in the civil courts to have committed the crime.

by Guest 18.05.11 17:46

Thanks for your reply. It doesn't help anyone's case to resort to sarcasm etc and I do my best to avoid it.

by Kay 19.05.11 0:07

I respect your questioning, Ringo for the simple reason that whilst I firmly believe that something definitely untoward occurred in May 2007 that implicates the McCann’s and some of the members in their group, I battle with myself with the very question you ask:

This is complete nonsense. Please cite just one instance of a criminal anywhere in the world that has continually drawn attention to themselves through the media over the course of years, written a best-selling book about themselves, voluntarily spent countless hours in the company of crime experts having meetings to discuss the crime etc, and simulataneously petitioned the government to review the investigation into their criminal doings - just one similar example will do.

I don’t have the expertise or historical knowledge to assist you with the request you make and until recently just reached my own conclusion that the situation has just evolved, got out of hand ~ thinking if they didn’t continue in their plight and people stopped believing in the McCann media circus, the public would look to the issue of neglect. Would the authorities dare to go down this road if they are still showing signs of suffering and grief. Additionally, they don’t have issues keeping the charade going as they know Madeleine won’t ever be found. (I have no clue what happened just my instinct and some informed reading of the case. By joining this site I hope to debate more and learn more).

So, when I say until recently, I mean on 3rd May this year when news broke about Bin Laden being killed. ( I understand it was the 2nd May), when I dare say for the McCanns, hoping to saturate the news once again, their bubble was burst by activities in Pakistan. Being 3rd May my thoughts went out to poor Madeleine who was so badly let down by her parents and at the same time I came to the conclusion that if Osama Bin Laden had the gall to live in the garrison city of Abbottabad undetected and fool those around him until his fateful day, then anyone could do anything that we least expect them to, including the McCanns. (Not ready to debate the Pakistani stance in regard to Bin Laden ~ in case I’m challenged)

by Ringo 19.05.11 9:21

LittleMissMolly wrote:Ringo, I totally accept that 'evidence' such as The Fund, the apparent lack of physical searching on the part of the McCanns and conspiracy theories about Gordon Brown, Masonic connections etc are/should be completely irrelevant when it comes to forming an opinion as to what happened to Madeleine McCann ... which is why you will never see me putting them forward as implications of guilt.

You will also never see me put forward their neglect of the children as proof of anything other than neglect.

None of these are proof of anything other than maybe bad choices and, as you say, are open to misenterpretation and putting 2 and 2 together to make creative accounting.

Yes, agreed on all of that.

Even the complete refusal of the McCanns to co-operate fully with the investigation and their inconsistencies/changing stories can be written off as evidence ... as they could merely be proof of arrogance, stupidity and seeking to present themselves in the best possible light in view of public opinion and censure.

Except that they didn't completely refuse to co-operate fully - they chose to stay in PdL for all of May, June, July and August to help with the investigation, during which time they complied with every single request made of them by the police. In fact, apart from Kate's refusal to answer 48 questions (most of which she had already answered several times before) what actually are you referring to? They agreed to take part in a reconstruction. How many criminals voluntarily stick around the scene of their crime for 4 months, when they have a perfect excuse to leave, i.e: to return back to their home hundreds of miles away?

In the same way the fact that the McCanns choose to whore themselves to the media and bring attention to themselves does not, as you appear to claim, confer proof of innocence... you cannot have your cake and eat it my friend!

I think you will find that they "whored" themselves to bring attention to their missing child, not themselves. It may not be proof of innocence as such, but their activities since Madeleine's disappearance must certainly be described as atypical and unprecedented for guilty people.

However matters such as the dogs and the 15 out of 20 allelles DNA results are not so easily written off ... especially when combined with a complete LACK of evidence for abduction.

The Attorney General found that there was no evidence to implicate them in any wrong-doing. Not 'inconclusive evidence' or 'insufficient evidence' but no evidence. And there is not a complete lack of evidence for abduction. There are two virtually identical sightings of a man carrying a child on the streets of PdL shortly after Madeleine's disappearance for one thing. A man carrying a child who has never been identified or eliminated from the enquiry.

by HotlipsHealy 19.05.11 9:27

Ringo wrote:during which time they complied with every single request made of them by the police.

You seem to know a lot winkwink

by Ringo 19.05.11 9:28

Kay wrote:
So, when I say until recently, I mean on 3rd May this year when news broke about Bin Laden being killed. ( I understand it was the 2nd May), when I dare say for the McCanns, hoping to saturate the news once again, their bubble was burst by activities in Pakistan. Being 3rd May my thoughts went out to poor Madeleine who was so badly let down by her parents and at the same time I came to the conclusion that if Osama Bin Laden had the gall to live in the garrison city of Abbottabad undetected and fool those around him until his fateful day, then anyone could do anything that we least expect them to, including the McCanns. (Not ready to debate the Pakistani stance in regard to Bin Laden ~ in case I’m challenged)

Hmm. The difference of course is that Bin Laden was keeping a completely invisible profile, had already fully acknowledged his role in numerous terrorist atrocities and was no doubt being protected by at least one wing of the Pakistani elite. I'm struggling to see the comparison to be honest with you.

by Ringo 19.05.11 9:29

HotlipsHealy wrote:
Ringo wrote:during which time they complied with every single request made of them by the police.

You seem to know a lot

Do you know different?

by HotlipsHealy 19.05.11 9:37

Ringo wrote:
HotlipsHealy wrote:
Ringo wrote:during which time they complied with every single request made of them by the police.

You seem to know a lot

Do you know different?

Why is Everyone Acting as Detective and losing Sight of the Most Important Aspect of This Case? - Page 2 Wanker10

Here's an avatar for you.

by Ringo 19.05.11 9:40

HotlipsHealy wrote:
Ringo wrote:
HotlipsHealy wrote:
Ringo wrote:during which time they complied with every single request made of them by the police.

You seem to know a lot

Do you know different?

Here's an avatar for you.

Ah. You must be one of the less intelligent posters on here. I knew there were a few.

by HotlipsHealy 19.05.11 9:42

Ringo wrote:
HotlipsHealy wrote:
Ringo wrote:
HotlipsHealy wrote:
Ringo wrote:during which time they complied with every single request made of them by the police.

You seem to know a lot

Do you know different?

Here's an avatar for you.

Ah. You must be one of the less intelligent posters on here. I knew there were a few.

Yep, I'm as intelligent as my avatar, except I still have all my kids at the last head count.

Please don't quote things as fact. You can't possibly know that they complied with every request from the police unless you are either Kate or Gerry.

by Ringo 19.05.11 9:45

If they had refused to comply with requests made of them by the police you can be certain that Mr Amaral would have drawn attention to it in one of his books. He would have held it up victoriously as proof of their guilt, in the same way that Kate's refusal to answer the questions right at the end of the process was pounced on as evidence of wrong-doing. You surely realise this.

by beejay 19.05.11 11:38

Ringo wrote:If they had refused to comply with requests made of them by the police you can be certain that Mr Amaral would have drawn attention to it in one of his books. He would have held it up victoriously as proof of their guilt, in the same way that Kate's refusal to answer the questions right at the end of the process was pounced on as evidence of wrong-doing. You surely realise this.

So why did Kate refuse to answer all the 48 questions then?

And why were their credit cards not made available? Phone records?

It is nonsense to suggest that they fully co-operated with the police investigation. You are far too cocksure of yourself.

Why is Everyone Acting as Detective and losing Sight of the Most Important Aspect of This Case?

My doubts over the McCanns

Re: Why is Everyone Acting as Detective and losing Sight of the Most Important Aspect of This Case?

Re: Why is Everyone Acting as Detective and losing Sight of the Most Important Aspect of This Case?

Reply to Ringo

Re: Why is Everyone Acting as Detective and losing Sight of the Most Important Aspect of This Case?

Re: Why is Everyone Acting as Detective and losing Sight of the Most Important Aspect of This Case?

Re: Why is Everyone Acting as Detective and losing Sight of the Most Important Aspect of This Case?

Re: Why is Everyone Acting as Detective and losing Sight of the Most Important Aspect of This Case?

Re: Why is Everyone Acting as Detective and losing Sight of the Most Important Aspect of This Case?

Re: Why is Everyone Acting as Detective and losing Sight of the Most Important Aspect of This Case?

Re: Why is Everyone Acting as Detective and losing Sight of the Most Important Aspect of This Case?

Re: Why is Everyone Acting as Detective and losing Sight of the Most Important Aspect of This Case?

Re: Why is Everyone Acting as Detective and losing Sight of the Most Important Aspect of This Case?

Re: Why is Everyone Acting as Detective and losing Sight of the Most Important Aspect of This Case?

Log in for more topics